|
(OT) Steve Jobs.
An article (MAC OS X LION VS. WINDOWS 7: WHICH OS IS BEST?) in my snail
mail September 2011 Laptop Magazine.The article has a URL/website, so I am typing it now. http://www.laptopmag.com/lion-vs-win7 They both have their places in the computer World.You can have both.Or, WebTV and PC and Apple/Mac. cuhulin |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Oct 11, 1:04*am, John Smith wrote:
On 10/10/2011 7:57 PM, Howard Brazee wrote: On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:07:36 -0700, John wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:31 PM, Howard Brazee wrote: ... So is renting an example of a generation being dumber? It is an example of not owning/having a home ... I don't know that needs any more explaining ... There's a lot you don't know. * *Hardly anybody *owns* a home. * And when the bank owns more than the house is worth, or when a job comes up and they can't sell their home to move, they wish they had rented. I am holding off downsizing until housing values go up. I am also subsidizing other homeowners because they have tax breaks renters don't get. * (and they are subsidizing me for the same thing).. They choose to rent instead of buy because they are dumb? There are owners, and there are those who are slaves and work/pay for their right to squat on land ... I really don't know what you are looking for here ... the obvious differences and benefits are simply that, obvious, to those with the grey matter to know that/those differences ... Or is it they are dumb enough to create the economy where it made more sense to rent than to buy? The indians sold manhattan for some beads and trinkets ... the russians sold alaska for less than one days worth of oil which comes out of there ... Again, those capable already know the importance of these facts ... and conduct their life accordingly ... the implications, importance and consequences surrounding what you ask make me think something is wrong if you must ask the question which you are ... Regards, JS It is always good to examine closely held beliefs. * *You don't seem to be willing to do so. The guy under the bridge, he doesn't own a home ... I know that ... if he wants one, if he thinks he needs one ... I just don't know ... but, I could guess ... The rest of what you had to say, bad decisions, paying too much for a home, etc. ... well ya', that is covered in "Life 101." *If you missed that class, problems will keep arising until you do take that class! ... don't make those bad decisions, don't pay too much for over valued property, don't buy what you can't afford, etc. Basically, it comes down to common sense, if you can't afford the house, don't buy it... yet ... If you are having problems, you will have to examine how you have been doing things, and change them -- doing what you have just done, and failing, but expecting a different result THIS TIME is just plain insanity! If in a dead end job, get out of it. *If in a low paying field, leave it. *If you suffer a lack of skills, get them ... the crooks in government can be blamed for a LOT of stuff -- letting valuable jobs go overseas, stealing wealth from citizens, graft, corruption, printing worthless money, etc. *But, you are to blame if you haven't placed yourself in a secure position, not made the right decisions, have over spent your income, didn't secure rock solid income(s), did not have mortgage insurance, didn't have backup plans, etc. I can't believe the number of people who are living from paycheck-to-paycheck, in bliss, in ignorance, not realizing they are a hairs breath from total disaster -- and then cry foul and are surprised when the house-of-cards comes crashing down! *The time to have done something about this is long before it happens to you! I hate to spring the bad news on you, but if you don't have the price of the home you are purchasing in the bank, or in assets you can quickly make liquid, then you probably should not be buying the house. *You are just "ripe for the picking." *And, next time the criminals want to create a "situation" and take their property back, to resell to the next victim -- they will come for you ... and you will get what you are asking for. Good solid citizens just don't start families without first having a home, a good income, stability and resources to support children into the same ... and have them in a state of rock solid stability! If you are talking about a single person ... then maybe a home is not needed ... depends on what they want, and expect, I suppose. Regards, JS- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Good comments. TMT |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Oct 11, 6:58*am, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:07:36 -0700, John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:31 PM, Howard Brazee wrote: ... So is renting an example of a generation being dumber? It is an example of not owning/having a home ... I don't know that needs any more explaining ... There's a lot you don't know. * *Hardly anybody *owns* a home. * And when the bank owns more than the house is worth, or when a job comes up and they can't sell their home to move, they wish they had rented. I am holding off downsizing until housing values go up. Legally I own the home, the mortgage company has a lien on the title. Just like when you buy a car, you own the car but the finance company has a lien on the title. I am also subsidizing other homeowners because they have tax breaks renters don't get. * (and they are subsidizing me for the same thing).. Why is your life on hold waiting for something that may never happen? I have heard that the housing market will not recover until 2020. I will be moving in 3 years, selling my house, and moving to a more tax friendly state. I will not wait for housing values to recover I will sell to whomever comes to me with a pile of money and I will move on with my life. They choose to rent instead of buy because they are dumb? There are owners, and there are those who are slaves and work/pay for their right to squat on land ... I really don't know what you are looking for here ... the obvious differences and benefits are simply that, obvious, to those with the grey matter to know that/those differences ... Or is it they are dumb enough to create the economy where it made more sense to rent than to buy? The indians sold manhattan for some beads and trinkets ... the russians sold alaska for less than one days worth of oil which comes out of there ... Again, those capable already know the importance of these facts ... and conduct their life accordingly ... the implications, importance and consequences surrounding what you ask make me think something is wrong if you must ask the question which you are ... Regards, JS It is always good to examine closely held beliefs. * *You don't seem to be willing to do so.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In CA, the last big housing hit in the 90's took over 15 years to recover from. Don't expect this one to be any different. TMT |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 6:47 AM, Tankfixer wrote:
In , - D Peter Maus spouted ! On 10/11/11 07:04 , BAR wrote: In , says... In , John wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. That was not his point. Consensus is not necessarily truth, nor fact. And popularity is certainly not dispositive proof of quality. If it were, the Model T would have been the highest quality vehicle of all time. The post was about which is the better tool. Not about where the largest sale figures post. Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Hey, everything was just going great, then you show up with quick wit, logic and fact and shoot everything to hell ... GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM chuckle Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 4:58 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:07:36 -0700, John wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:31 PM, Howard Brazee wrote: ... So is renting an example of a generation being dumber? It is an example of not owning/having a home ... I don't know that needs any more explaining ... There's a lot you don't know. Hardly anybody *owns* a home. And when the bank owns more than the house is worth, or when a job comes up and they can't sell their home to move, they wish they had rented. I am holding off downsizing until housing values go up. Legally I own the home, the mortgage company has a lien on the title. Just like when you buy a car, you own the car but the finance company has a lien on the title. I am also subsidizing other homeowners because they have tax breaks renters don't get. (and they are subsidizing me for the same thing). Why is your life on hold waiting for something that may never happen? I have heard that the housing market will not recover until 2020. I will be moving in 3 years, selling my house, and moving to a more tax friendly state. I will not wait for housing values to recover I will sell to whomever comes to me with a pile of money and I will move on with my life. They choose to rent instead of buy because they are dumb? There are owners, and there are those who are slaves and work/pay for their right to squat on land ... I really don't know what you are looking for here ... the obvious differences and benefits are simply that, obvious, to those with the grey matter to know that/those differences ... Or is it they are dumb enough to create the economy where it made more sense to rent than to buy? The indians sold manhattan for some beads and trinkets ... the russians sold alaska for less than one days worth of oil which comes out of there ... Again, those capable already know the importance of these facts ... and conduct their life accordingly ... the implications, importance and consequences surrounding what you ask make me think something is wrong if you must ask the question which you are ... Regards, JS It is always good to examine closely held beliefs. You don't seem to be willing to do so. I reread my post, while basically saying what I meant to, I did make some "mistakes in the wording." I have made some horrible mistakes in life, and paid dearly for them, I lost my first home, and the money invested in it, and had to begin again ... I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class "Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ... Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 4:52 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On 10/10/2011 4:20 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 10/10/2011 3:19 PM, BAR wrote: In , says... On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... Plus, when you give people a product with is dirt free, they just can never really trust it, they have to suffer payment or they just have "that uncomfortable feeling." ROFLOL Regards, JS You get what you pay for. When it is free that is exactly what you get, free software. We tend to go with Red Hat ES and SUSE Linux. These have proved to be the most stable and most apps are supported on them. I have just gone through migrating a class of applications from Solaris (SPARC) to Windows. The rational is that there was no need to have your "highly educated" workforce supporting the applications on UNIX/Linux when they can be supported by just about anyone on a Windows system. And, since they are on Windows they easily run in a VM. The cost went from about $25,000 a year to about $300 for the systems. The run support is expected to be about $2,500 for the partial off-shore Windows head. Well, red hat and suse have what some don't, proprietary hype and cutsy GUI tools and implement their own "methods of doing things" ... the most "honest linux", which stays true to form, the most, to the old UNIX, is slackware ... simply pick the GUI interface you want to use with it, or are most comfortable with ... coming from times before the "GREAT GUI GOD", and related/associated "biblical scriptures in 'GUI syntax'", I use a command line as much as possible ... but then, up until vista, I knew how to turn off the windows gui and go mainly commandline (almost like a 32-bit "super dos!") ... the gui just got too tough to fight ... I now use the Great GUI Gods tools ... I could care less about keeping to "honest Linux" I have applications that a world wide engineering organizations rely upon 24/7/365. I want up time. I used to be a command-line die-hard like you but, I have people who write code and do all of the nitty-gritty technical stuff and I really don't care if you use ed or vi to edit your files. Then, why bother, windows is perfect for you ... You identify the problem and provide the best solution to solve the problem within the constraints you have to solve the problem. Linux is not the solution to all problems and neither is Windows the solution to all problems. A couple of years ago we did deploy a system on Linux because Linux was the best platform to solve the problem. Over the course of past employment, I have developed apps/utilities/drivers/codecs/etc. for most platforms ... I have done most on a PC, regardless of the platform they were intended for ... If the plant had nothing but UNIX machines, I used them -- ... except for my employment in colleges, I have never used a MAC/Apple ... indeed, back in the early 90s I was engaged in a battle to set up a PC lab and allow instructors a choice of Apple or PC in their offices ... at one "Apple biased" college -- thankfully, we "won." Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/11 11:52 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. I didn't even address the issue of social status. ReRead carefully. I addressed the issue of the technique of dismissing someone's position as foolish because it doesn't agree with one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. Who owns which computer? Who gives a ****. I have computers running Macintosh, Linux and Windows. Status doesn't enter into it. Please be more diligent in discerning what someone is saying before you actually attempt to rebut it. It would be nice to engage in a discussion in which you are actually on the same topic. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform You need to spend some time with the Macintosh platform. I have applications of every size, purpose, and variation on my business machines. Only a handful of these applications did I have to pay retail for. The rest are all open source share- or free-ware. And all of the installed with a simple drag-and-drop. And all work without difficulty. Any software application I require is available in many forms, from multiple developers, on the Macintosh platform. .... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... That's a good point. But you should really, again, investigate before you comment. Your information, is incorrect. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
RD Sandman wrote:
Alan Baker wrote in : So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse. Old joke: "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?" "Right-click." |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"WrongWayWade" wrote in news:j72172$d4h$1@dont-
email.me: RD Sandman wrote: Alan Baker wrote in : So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse. Old joke: "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?" "Right-click." ;) -- Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman) Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue over a bar bill on the Titanic..... |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/11 11:56 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
"WrongWayWade" wrote in news:j72172$d4h$1@dont- email.me: RD Sandman wrote: Alan Baker wrote in : So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse. Old joke: "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?" "Right-click." ;) Or just plug a multi-button USB mouse into the Mac; problem solved ;) (I'll admit that I've done exactly that on my desktop machine - reaching for the Control key when clicking in order to activate context menus gets old fast.) - x. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 11:02 AM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/11/11 11:52 , John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. I didn't even address the issue of social status. ReRead carefully. I addressed the issue of the technique of dismissing someone's position as foolish because it doesn't agree with one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. Who owns which computer? Who gives a ****. I have computers running Macintosh, Linux and Windows. Status doesn't enter into it. Please be more diligent in discerning what someone is saying before you actually attempt to rebut it. It would be nice to engage in a discussion in which you are actually on the same topic. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform You need to spend some time with the Macintosh platform. I have applications of every size, purpose, and variation on my business machines. Only a handful of these applications did I have to pay retail for. The rest are all open source share- or free-ware. And all of the installed with a simple drag-and-drop. And all work without difficulty. Any software application I require is available in many forms, from multiple developers, on the Macintosh platform. ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... That's a good point. But you should really, again, investigate before you comment. Your information, is incorrect. On second look, you are actually quite correct, your text was just meaningless babble which I attempted to attribute some sense of importance and meaning to ... I stand corrected ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:12 -0700, John Smith
wrote: I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class "Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ... Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet .. Yep, mistakes happen. And different people have different smart choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I am - nor that I'm dumber than he is. And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote: Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the design of PC compatible computers. When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an existing building to make it earthquake resistant. Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes). These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because one was a hardware company and the other was a software company. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:17:14 -0400, "WrongWayWade"
wrote: Microsoft does make hardware. It is called a mouse. Old joke: "What can you do with your PC that I can't do with my MAC?" "Right-click." Funny. And even though we can now right-click with Macs, Windows does that better. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
|
(OT) Steve Jobs.
|
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:25:35 -0400, BAR wrote:
Yep, mistakes happen. And different people have different smart choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I am - nor that I'm dumber than he is. Who is responsible for yours or his incorrect choices? That isn't my concern - I just don't care for someone saying that someone else is dumb for not making my choice. If a generation doesn't buy homes the way ours did doesn't mean that this generation is dumber than ours. And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us. It isn't so much that they are dumber, they just make decision that we wouldn't make. Which is the point I was trying to make, to a response that said they are dumber because they don't buy houses as much as we did. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/11 16:40 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/11/2011 11:02 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 11:52 , John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. I didn't even address the issue of social status. ReRead carefully. I addressed the issue of the technique of dismissing someone's position as foolish because it doesn't agree with one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. Who owns which computer? Who gives a ****. I have computers running Macintosh, Linux and Windows. Status doesn't enter into it. Please be more diligent in discerning what someone is saying before you actually attempt to rebut it. It would be nice to engage in a discussion in which you are actually on the same topic. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform You need to spend some time with the Macintosh platform. I have applications of every size, purpose, and variation on my business machines. Only a handful of these applications did I have to pay retail for. The rest are all open source share- or free-ware. And all of the installed with a simple drag-and-drop. And all work without difficulty. Any software application I require is available in many forms, from multiple developers, on the Macintosh platform. ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... That's a good point. But you should really, again, investigate before you comment. Your information, is incorrect. On second look, you are actually quite correct, your text was just meaningless babble which I attempted to attribute some sense of importance and meaning to ... I stand corrected ... Right back atcha, Buckwheat. Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2011 11:44 PM, Scout wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2011 3:02 PM, Scout wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: then sold them the software for exorbitant prices ... signed them into exploitative contracts, etc. Really? And they signed these contracts with the children? Because I was under the impression that schools had people who were qualified to agree to such contracts... Contracts which stipulated only apple people maintained the college hardware ... etc., etc. Games within games, really. Then they were free not to sign them, weren't they? Ergo: not strongarmed at all. Back in the late 80's and early 90's I taught at a jr. college, I seen first hand how apples predatory sales techniques worked. Clearly. Finally, at the college, a few of us wrote letters of complaint to the "higher ups" and rectified the problem ... there was also some business of "incentives" being passed about about by apple to those who controlled purchasing ... lunches, wining and dining, etc. However, digital equipment corporation also participated in such practices ... (DEC) However, one thing I did notice, the "apple room" was always full of liberal arts students while the PC sections of the computer labs always contained the math, physics, science, etc. students ... just as a casual observation ... Riiiiiiiight. Regards, JS Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually Microsoft does make hardware. Mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, and even fingerprint readers. True they don't build systems, but they do produce certain types of hardware. They even patent certain aspects of that hardware. Such as the tilt wheel mouse. Hell, back in 2008, they received a patent for the page up and page down keys. (Patent #7,415,666) Actually, the problem might be semantics, here. But, I would like to have my ignorance and false beliefs removed. So, enlighten me, where are the microsoft manufacturing plants which are making these these things -- mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, even fingerprint readers? All I am aware of is microsoft lending their name to products which other companies manufacture ... except software, they do produce that, themselves ... they even hire employees to make it, the software. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/cor...make-new-zunes You figure out where the rest are. If it is done with their name, then they are the manufacturer. Yeah, thought so, this from that page: "The original Zune, released in November, was produced using a framework and components provided by Toshiba Corp. Reindorp said the company hopes that by taking a more direct role in manufacturing a second version, it will help the device gain popularity." Yep, and you think the Mac is made by Apple? Hate to tell you but virtually all of the components in an Mac are made by someone else. The Ipad is no different. Looks like you are simply looking for something to make an issue of, and ignoring that apple works exactly the same way. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article , - D Peter Maus
spouted ! On 10/11/11 08:47 , Tankfixer wrote: In , - D Peter Maus spouted ! On 10/11/11 07:04 , BAR wrote: In , says... In , John wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. That was not his point. Consensus is not necessarily truth, nor fact. And popularity is certainly not dispositive proof of quality. If it were, the Model T would have been the highest quality vehicle of all time. The post was about which is the better tool. Not about where the largest sale figures post. Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Actually, BSD is the core of OSX. Parts of it... |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
|
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote: In article , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the design of PC compatible computers. Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it. Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said. When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an existing building to make it earthquake resistant. And no other OS company is continually improving their product ? Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said? There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it had the power to start over. Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers. Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes). These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because one was a hardware company and the other was a software company. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
|
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- -- -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. Keep trying - increasingly it does not. Check Apple's rapidly growing market share. More importantly, I can tell you more and more college students in technical fields like science and engineering are using Macs these days. Programming in Matlab, Maple, Mathematica is the norm now, and they all run perfectly on OS X. Plus they get all the benefits of OS X in other applications, too. When these kids hit the job market, the trend will simply continue. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
Tankfixer wrote: In article , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: In article , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the design of PC compatible computers. Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it. Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said. Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS. Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC makers build. "Crafted"? As in "Vista", I suppose ;-) When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an existing building to make it earthquake resistant. And no other OS company is continually improving their product ? Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said? You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product. You ever tried to use Vista? I thought not. Microsoft had a choice between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster. There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it had the power to start over. Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers. Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users. Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk still content with Tiger. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 3:07 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:12 -0700, John wrote: I am not attempting to "sit a high horse," I had to re-take the class "Life 101" a few times, before getting it close to right ... Basically, you just keep on keeping on ... and, the group of criminals in the public servant offices are a REAL determent to goals of many citizens and families ... this needs worked on, along the way, with the other problems ... I am sure, although I get older by the day, there are still mistakes awaiting me, in my future, short time, here on the planet .. Yep, mistakes happen. And different people have different smart choices they make. When someone else makes a different choice than I do about, say, home ownership - that doesn't mean he's dumber than I am - nor that I'm dumber than he is. And if every generation when it gets as old as I am, observes that the new generations are dumber than we were - that the Right choices were made by my generation (not the previous generations), I figure that maybe this time isn't different. A century or two from now, they won't notice the unique downturn that is so obvious to us. Usually, no, not even usually, every time I have met a man who owns nothing, says nothing and does nothing, etc., etc., against evil, wrong doing, corruption, graft, etc., etc. and the criminals who would harm others -- that man is nothing. Pick one, they are usually just the start of all the others ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 3:16 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the design of PC compatible computers. When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an existing building to make it earthquake resistant. Apple didn't need to shore up its OS in the same way. It tore down the old structure and built its OS upon a new core that had been proven to be better designed for connectivity (earthquakes). These two ways of getting to the same result were necessary because one was a hardware company and the other was a software company. BSD is just a much more controlled and closed linux. It is the beginning of the circle which leads right back to MAX os and windows ... Linux fixes the errors in a close operating system(s), the financial incentives will always be aimed at destroying them ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/12/2011 5:16 AM, William Clark wrote:
In , wrote: In , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: In , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the design of PC compatible computers. Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it. Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said. Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS. Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC makers build. "Crafted"? As in "Vista", I suppose ;-) When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an existing building to make it earthquake resistant. And no other OS company is continually improving their product ? Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said? You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product. You ever tried to use Vista? I thought not. Microsoft had a choice between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster. There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it had the power to start over. Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers. Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users. Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk still content with Tiger. We still have 50 year olds which read childrens' books and play with jacks ... of course, most people don't wish retardation on themselves. But, they do seem quite content, also ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 3:56 PM, D Peter Maus wrote:
On 10/11/11 16:40 , John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 11:02 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 11:52 , John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. I didn't even address the issue of social status. ReRead carefully. I addressed the issue of the technique of dismissing someone's position as foolish because it doesn't agree with one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. Who owns which computer? Who gives a ****. I have computers running Macintosh, Linux and Windows. Status doesn't enter into it. Please be more diligent in discerning what someone is saying before you actually attempt to rebut it. It would be nice to engage in a discussion in which you are actually on the same topic. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform You need to spend some time with the Macintosh platform. I have applications of every size, purpose, and variation on my business machines. Only a handful of these applications did I have to pay retail for. The rest are all open source share- or free-ware. And all of the installed with a simple drag-and-drop. And all work without difficulty. Any software application I require is available in many forms, from multiple developers, on the Macintosh platform. ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... That's a good point. But you should really, again, investigate before you comment. Your information, is incorrect. On second look, you are actually quite correct, your text was just meaningless babble which I attempted to attribute some sense of importance and meaning to ... I stand corrected ... Right back atcha, Buckwheat. Regards, JS Expected nothing better ... you have been there quite awhile now. Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/11/2011 6:36 PM, Scout wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2011 11:44 PM, Scout wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... On 10/10/2011 3:02 PM, Scout wrote: "Alan Baker" wrote in message ... In article , John Smith wrote: then sold them the software for exorbitant prices ... signed them into exploitative contracts, etc. Really? And they signed these contracts with the children? Because I was under the impression that schools had people who were qualified to agree to such contracts... Contracts which stipulated only apple people maintained the college hardware ... etc., etc. Games within games, really. Then they were free not to sign them, weren't they? Ergo: not strongarmed at all. Back in the late 80's and early 90's I taught at a jr. college, I seen first hand how apples predatory sales techniques worked. Clearly. Finally, at the college, a few of us wrote letters of complaint to the "higher ups" and rectified the problem ... there was also some business of "incentives" being passed about about by apple to those who controlled purchasing ... lunches, wining and dining, etc. However, digital equipment corporation also participated in such practices ... (DEC) However, one thing I did notice, the "apple room" was always full of liberal arts students while the PC sections of the computer labs always contained the math, physics, science, etc. students ... just as a casual observation ... Riiiiiiiight. Regards, JS Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually Microsoft does make hardware. Mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, and even fingerprint readers. True they don't build systems, but they do produce certain types of hardware. They even patent certain aspects of that hardware. Such as the tilt wheel mouse. Hell, back in 2008, they received a patent for the page up and page down keys. (Patent #7,415,666) Actually, the problem might be semantics, here. But, I would like to have my ignorance and false beliefs removed. So, enlighten me, where are the microsoft manufacturing plants which are making these these things -- mice, keyboards, headsets, webcams, even fingerprint readers? All I am aware of is microsoft lending their name to products which other companies manufacture ... except software, they do produce that, themselves ... they even hire employees to make it, the software. http://www.marke****ch.com/story/cor...make-new-zunes You figure out where the rest are. If it is done with their name, then they are the manufacturer. Yeah, thought so, this from that page: "The original Zune, released in November, was produced using a framework and components provided by Toshiba Corp. Reindorp said the company hopes that by taking a more direct role in manufacturing a second version, it will help the device gain popularity." Yep, and you think the Mac is made by Apple? Hate to tell you but virtually all of the components in an Mac are made by someone else. The Ipad is no different. Looks like you are simply looking for something to make an issue of, and ignoring that apple works exactly the same way. What, you missed all the past discussions in everything now being made in china? I think most thought it would be necessary to stipulate MAC too ... guess we were wrong ... Regards, JS |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On 10/12/11 07:37 , John Smith wrote:
On 10/11/2011 3:56 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 16:40 , John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 11:02 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 11:52 , John Smith wrote: On 10/11/2011 8:16 AM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/11/11 01:15 , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 2:30 PM, D Peter Maus wrote: On 10/10/11 16:27 , Alan Baker wrote: In , John wrote: Your post is an excellent example of what I have found about "Apple People", they have a religious devotion to the platform ... Your post is an excellent example of someone who believes that anyone who sees value where you do not must do it out of religious devotion... Personally, the only reason I use a PC, and refuse MAC's, is that I write much of the software I use ... plus, I private contract to develop software on multiple platforms (even though I am retired, for the most part) ... while most of that could be done on a MAC, it simply would not make economic sense, for me ... I mean, I am in the business to make money -- NOT pay money to apple ... apple has worked hard in being one of the most proprietary corps I have ever seen, I think they can do that without me ... In what way is the Mac more "proprietary" than Windows from your perspective? The fact that they've always sold computers with their own OS? You can write software for that platform just as you can for Windows or for Linux. Windows doesn't hold patents on the hardware, to run their software, just for starters ... and, they don't have an iphone, or even an idildo, for that matter! ROFLOL So? Apple's suddenly an evil empire because they make hardware and Microsoft doesn't? Actually, you have missed the point, gotten off track, the conversation I seen was focused on fools and overpaying for the same bang less buck will do ... It isn't that apple is evil for taking fools money, the fools always end up giving it to some one ... nor are the fools evil ... evil just doesn't really apply. If fools willingly give you money, I am not aware of any crimes which have been broken, nor evil criminals at fault ... I mean, like, DUH! Regards, JS As I said: How arrogant to assume that anyone who sees value in what you do not must be a fool... It's a cultural standard, today. Hey, I am not the one into social standards! You apparently aren't into reading, either. I said nothing about social standards. I responded to the comment about the arrogance of dismissal of values not one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. I freely admit that a MAC can do anything a PC can do ... the PC can just do it faster, cheaper and usually better ... Which exactly explains why there are so many Windows PC's at JPL. You may not have said the exact words, but if the point that this/these argument(s)/discussion(s), for many, is centering around computers as status symbols and the ownership being regarded, by some, as some kind of social status standard, then I am at a loss for words ... as it seems quite apparent to me. I didn't even address the issue of social status. ReRead carefully. I addressed the issue of the technique of dismissing someone's position as foolish because it doesn't agree with one's own. THAT is a cultural standard, today. Who owns which computer? Who gives a ****. I have computers running Macintosh, Linux and Windows. Status doesn't enter into it. Please be more diligent in discerning what someone is saying before you actually attempt to rebut it. It would be nice to engage in a discussion in which you are actually on the same topic. Indeed, since the argument/statement(s) of MAC supporters has totally ignored the ease of upgrading, the diversity of hardware offered, the abundance of freeware supplied, the ease of codecs to play any possibly imagined media, multiple and numerous apps offered for every possible task/job/use, etc., ON THE PC PLATFORM -- while there is a noticeable lack of these, and only at a notable expense -- obtainable on the apple platform You need to spend some time with the Macintosh platform. I have applications of every size, purpose, and variation on my business machines. Only a handful of these applications did I have to pay retail for. The rest are all open source share- or free-ware. And all of the installed with a simple drag-and-drop. And all work without difficulty. Any software application I require is available in many forms, from multiple developers, on the Macintosh platform. ... all we are left with is the MAC as a status symbol and ego trip ... no one really has to "say anything", one only needs to examine past text in this thread for proof of that statement. Or, simply, anyone can say anything, in the end, you can just look at it and see what it really is ... That's a good point. But you should really, again, investigate before you comment. Your information, is incorrect. On second look, you are actually quite correct, your text was just meaningless babble which I attempted to attribute some sense of importance and meaning to ... I stand corrected ... Right back atcha, Buckwheat. Regards, JS Expected nothing better ... you have been there quite awhile now. An interesting remark from one whose information is so frequently out of date. |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article , -
William Clark spouted ! In article , Tankfixer wrote: In article , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:38:11 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: In article , - Howard Brazee spouted ! On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 06:47:07 -0700, Tankfixer wrote: Mac's and the Apple operating system were so technologically superior that Apple adopted the i86 processor and borrowed Linux as the core for OS10 Apple had the power to start over. It could start over twice to change to better CPUs. And it had the power to switch its core to BSD Unix. Microsoft couldn't do this - it did not control the design of PC compatible computers. Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it. Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said. Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS. Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC makers build. "Crafted"? As in "Vista", I suppose ;-) Hey I never said it was well crafted.... When the environment changed from stand-alone desktop computers to computers connected with the world, Microsoft had to keep tweaking its core system again and again as it had to keep compatibility while making it safe for the new environment. It's like shoring up an existing building to make it earthquake resistant. And no other OS company is continually improving their product ? Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said? You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product. You ever tried to use Vista? I thought not. Actually that's what I'm forced to use at work. Microsoft had a choice between an extensive rebuild to Windows to Windows 7, or disaster. There is an advantage in starting over using tools that other companies have created - such as Unix. Unix has been improved over the years and because it was designed for different purposes, it made a safer core than simply improving the Mac operating system. Or Windows. Since Apple controlled the hardware that its OS used, it had the power to start over. Maybe Windows had that power, maybe not - but Microsoft didn't go in that direction. It would have lost a lot of customers who wanted backward compatibility. Its primary customers are PC manufacturers. Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users. Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk still content with Tiger. So OSx is backward compatable with previous Apple OS ? |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
My snail mail November 2011 Popular Mechanics magazine has an article
comparing Apple MacBook Pro vs. HP Pavilion DM4 laptop computers. In essense, Popular Mechanics magazine says to save your money and buy the Windows computer.It will get the job done. Get your hands on that magazine and read that article yourself.It might be on the internet right now. http://www.popularmechanics.com cuhulin |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:45 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote: And no other OS company is continually improving their product ? Huh? Again, what has that to do with what I said? You imply that only Microsoft has to continually improve it's product. No I didn't. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:45 -0700, Tankfixer
wrote: Oddly enough BSD Unix runs just fine on i86 based machines, doesn't it. Sure. Which has nothing to do with anything I said. Apple had to redesign it's architecture to use it's BSD/UNIX clone OS. Microsoft didn't need to since it crafted it's OS to work with what PC makers build. I'm not getting the connection here. Times changed from when Windows and Apple's OS were designed for stand-alone computers. What worked best then doesn't work best now. There are two ways of moving their operating systems to fit our needs, shoring up the existing structure, or tearing down the old system and building a stronger foundation. A better foundation was available for these operating systems (Unix). Microsoft couldn't take the second option because it had tenants that wouldn't move. Apple only had itself as a tenant, so it could take that option. So it took longer for Microsoft to modify its OS to be safe in today's connected environment. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:16:33 -0400, William Clark
wrote: Instead we have Apple who abandonded previous OS users. Really? Not only do Apple's OS's stay useful much longer than Microsoft's, upward mobility is easy and cheap. We have plenty of folk still content with Tiger. Not always. My wife has a couple of games that no longer work with Lion besides her USB floppy drive which we don't use anyway. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
(OT) Steve Jobs.
In article ,
William Clark wrote: In article , BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , John Smith wrote: On 10/10/2011 4:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , Alan wrote: In articlejoednXxxSuLvPQzTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@earthlink .com, wrote: On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:03:20 +0900, Brenda Ann wrote: That's not the business Apple is in; they sell a lifestyle of form [over] substance ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- --- -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---- --- -- -- Besides, Apple was extant in the market before PC's (the original Apple computer was something like $3000, a clone was about $2300, IIRC). Apple maintained a following and indeed an increasing market base even after PC's got so cheap that most anyone could afford one. If someone likes a product enough to pay what seems to be an exhorbitant price for it, even in the face of a much cheaper alternative, then that is what they call "market forces" in operation. The consumer, in this case, has actually set the price by buying the product. If nobody were buying it, it would either become cheaper or taken off the market. They subsidised and strongarmed their way into schools; a whole generation equated Apple with computing. It's definitely a fashion thing. I was the IT guy at a TV network west coast headquarters. All the "creative" types insisted on iMacs; they refused to work on windows machines (this is for typing-not editing). Hollywood creative types are insufferable boors. Of course... ...someone insisting on a product must be a "fashion thing". How exactly did Apple "strongarm" their way into schools. Perhaps this genius can also explain why more and more college students in science and engineering are switching to Macs? Of their own free will, that is. And not to use Windoze on them, either. What is Apple at now - 11%, third largest, up from less than 5% four years ago? Intel won. Linux is surely the equal, or better, of windows -- however, it is a tad bit more difficult to use (unbutu perhaps breaks that rule) and is just as prone to viruses and such, if used by people without proper education and/or a virus/malware scanner ... If Linux is "surely the equal, or better, of Windows", then Mac OS X is surely the superior of Windows, because it is surely the better of Linux. It offers all that Linux offers and is easier to use. Keep trying. The world runs on Windows. Keep trying - increasingly it does not. Check Apple's rapidly growing market share. More importantly, I can tell you more and more college students in technical fields like science and engineering are using Macs these days. Programming in Matlab, Maple, Mathematica is the norm now, and they all run perfectly on OS X. Plus they get all the benefits of OS X in other applications, too. When these kids hit the job market, the trend will simply continue. And more and more businesses are letting their employees choose their own computers. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com